WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today welcomed a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) National Research Council report (NRC) titled “New Source Review for Stationary Sources of Air Pollution.” The NRC report found that NSR is less effective at reducing power plant emissions and more costly than President Bush’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) – and by extension, Senator Inhofe’s Clear Skies legislation.
“The NRC study reveals that NSR is less effective at reducing power plant emissions and more costly on a ton for ton basis than President Bush’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) – and by extension, my Clear Skies legislation – effectively striping away a fundamental Democrat argument in the Clean Air debate,” Senator Inhofe said. “This report shows that NSR obtains few reductions in emissions and adds little even when combined with a cap-and-trade approach. Moreover, it finds that reducing pollution through NSR is three times more costly than under cap-and-trade.
“Democrats have delayed emissions reductions, saying that NSR streamlining would be a "roll back" of the Clean Air Act. This has thwarted legislative efforts to pass nationwide emission reductions to improve public health, forcing the Administration to issue the important, but far less comprehensive or protective CAIR rule. Regrettably, Democrats would have us rely on an NSR program that has been burdensome, confusing, contradictory, and counterproductive to clean air progress.
“The NRC reports conclusions reveals that Democrat’s long time opposition is solely political, and not for benefit of cleaning our nation’s air. If our friends on the other side of the aisle are truly serious about improving the nation’s air quality and cutting pollution from power plants, they should join us in supporting the Clear Skies Act instead of delaying reductions with political posturing.”
The report issued the following substantive conclusions:
“That marginal cost is also several times as large as the cost to achieving the same reductions by imposing cap-and-trade policies” (Pg, 157, Chapter 6, Assessing Potential Effects on the Electricity-Generating Sector)
“Thus, we conclude that from the standpoint of limiting national and regional emissions – a goal, but far from the only one, of NSR – a tighter emissions cap would likely be a cheaper method of limiting national and regional emissions that NSR. (Pg. 157, Chapter 6, Assessing Potential Effects on the Electricity-Generating Sector)
[With CAIR in effect] “For both NOx and SO2, unless controls become extensive enough to reduce emissions below the cap, the main effects of an NSR RMRR policy that result in greater retirements, repowering, or retrofits of facilities will be to increase power-production costs and spatially redistribute emissions. National emissions totals would not change appreciably. Because of the cap-and-trade programs, reduction of emissions at one facility frees up allowances that allow greater emissions to occur elsewhere. Therefore, the effect of the prerevision of NSR policy on SO2 and NOx emissions from power plants (in the context of binding national cap-and-trade programs) would be to rearrange emissions across both space and time and to increase costs.”(Pg, 156, Chapter 6, Assessing Potential Effects on the Electricity-Generating Sector)